Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny.”

Wrong.

The question is in fact limited to just two people not related to each other, because only two people not related to each other are eligible to enter into marriage contracts – same- or opposite-sex.

You continue to promote the ridiculous lie that allowing same-sex couples to marry will 'change' marriage law, when nothing could be further from the truth.

When same-sex couples began to marry in Florida last January, for example, there were no 'changes' made to Florida marriage law – same-sex couples were accessing the same Florida marriage law as opposite-sex couples.

You also continue to promote the ridiculous red herring fallacy that allowing same-sex couples to marry will 'open the door' to 'incest marriage' and 'plural marriage,' which is also completely false and unfounded.

Indeed, for over ten years now same-sex couples have been marrying in jurisdictions where 'incest marriage' and 'plural marriage' remain illegal, and laws prohibiting such 'marriages' are fully Constitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny.”

Wrong.

The question is in fact limited to just two people not related to each other, because only two people not related to each other are eligible to enter into marriage contracts – same- or opposite-sex.

Well, let's see. Marriage is limited (not banned) to just a man and a woman in California and some 35 other states. So erstwhile limits don't seem to be an issue with your premise of "equality".

Try something else. The Supremes only have a couple of weeks for you to convince them that equality = "only gays in numbers of two".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny.”

Wrong.

The question is in fact limited to just two people not related to each other, because only two people not related to each other are eligible to enter into marriage contracts – same- or opposite-sex.

Well, let's see. Marriage is limited (not banned) to just a man and a woman in California and some 35 other states. So erstwhile limits don't seem to be an issue with your premise of "equality".

Try something else. The Supremes only have a couple of weeks for you to convince them that equality = "only gays in numbers of two".

You continue to attempt to propagate the lie that the issue before the Court concerns 'changing' marriage law, when in fact that's completely false.

Marriage law can accommodate only two persons – same- or opposite-sex; some states have sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

That's the only issue before the Court, where should the Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit, invalidating measures that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, the ruling will in no way 'change' the marriage law in any of the 50 states, nor will such a ruling in any way 'facilitate' allowing for 'plural marriage' or 'incest marriage.'

 

[Silhouette]

You continue to attempt to propagate the lie that the issue before the Court concerns 'changing' marriage law, when in fact that's completely false.

Marriage law can accommodate only two persons – same- or opposite-sex; some states have sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

That's the only issue before the Court, where should the Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit, invalidating measures that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, the ruling will in no way 'change' the marriage law in any of the 50 states, nor will such a ruling in any way 'facilitate' allowing for 'plural marriage' or 'incest marriage.'

You are absolutely about asking the US Supreme Court to force some 35 states to fundamentally change their marriage law from father/mother marriage to "absent father or mother" marriage. What part about that simple fact aren't you getting? The Supremes are going to be concerned about the most important people in this debate: children. So get a grip because they are deliberating that very point as we both talk here. Denial isn't going to save you on that one.

And since your premise is "marriage equality", while you seek to dismantle thousands-year old definition of the base structure of marriage (father/mother), the number "2" is no more sacred than man/woman father/mother anymore if you succeed. And the Justices know this. It's why Kennedy brought it up in transcripts. It's why he questioned your side of transcripts also about how you would advise him to prevent say 2 men marrying 2 women. He urged your side to tell him why 4 parents wouldn't be better than just two?

Your side failed in that line of questioning. And I'll wager that failure wasn't lost on the keen mind of Justice Kennedy, nor any of the others who hadn't already shown patent bias in your favor before this Hearing happened (Ginsburg/Kagan). So, your pleas WERE about dismantling the ancient physical structure of the defintion. Nobody has ever heard of gay marriage before the last decade. But many people have heard of polygamy marriage before the last decade. So, properly, if you guys succeed at dismantling the definition, polygamists are a shoe-in. All they have to do is cite more ancient tradition and they're in baby. Once you remove the power from the states to define marriage and put it in the laps of the fed under the premise of "equality", you have utterly shattered any and all "traditional" claims to keep marriage father/mother. After that point, by the way American law works, precedent and equality demands that any person(s) wanting to be married may do so. What, are you a prude when it comes to polygamy? Are you aware it was decriminalized recently in Utah?

 

[Syriusly]

1. The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny. "Equality" is weighed equally on the scales of the lady with the blindfold on. If the court completely dismantles the physical structure of marriage (father and mother to children), in order to accomodate a completely new description of it, the number "two" is no more magical than father/mother anymore.
2. The example of 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire will be the guiding principle for this. It is a much tougher question for sure

That's what you say. The question on the other hand asks specifically and exclusively about two people.

The second question is a dead ringer. Its plausible that it will get a 9 to 0 affirmation.

Hmmm...but the premise of dismantling father/mother is "equality" so since ass-sex between men as "neo father/psuedo-mother" is about as whacked

As about as whacked as anything you post.

You are such a homophobic bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

You continue to attempt to propagate the lie that the issue before the Court concerns 'changing' marriage law, when in fact that's completely false.

Marriage law can accommodate only two persons – same- or opposite-sex; some states have sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

That's the only issue before the Court, where should the Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit, invalidating measures that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, the ruling will in no way 'change' the marriage law in any of the 50 states, nor will such a ruling in any way 'facilitate' allowing for 'plural marriage' or 'incest marriage.'

You are absolutely about asking the US Supreme Court to force some 35 states to fundamentally change their marriage law from father/mother marriage to "absent father or mother" marriage. ?

There is no such thing as 'father/mother marriage'- there is just marriage.

Whether or not a couple have children or not they are still married.
Whether or not a couple are married or not, if they have children they are parents.

You just want to ensure that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no such thing as 'father/mother marriage'- there is just marriage.

Whether or not a couple have children or not they are still married.
Whether or not a couple are married or not, if they have children they are parents.

You just want to ensure that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

There has always been father/mother man/wife marriage; for thousands of years. Check with Justice Kennedy about that. States anticipate children in marriage; otherwise the institution is a net loss for any state. Why would they be involved? And in divorce court, the state reluctantly grants a divorce and spends most of its time focusing on what happens with/to the kids involved.

Polygamists and incest situations have kids to. Do you want to insure that they don't have married parents? Of course you do! Because objecting to those marriages is politically expedient for you right now.

You are a bigot and a hypocrite. And Justice Kennedy was indicating that with his questioning. Might want to look at the transcripts and get back to me.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no such thing as 'father/mother marriage'- there is just marriage.

Whether or not a couple have children or not they are still married.
Whether or not a couple are married or not, if they have children they are parents.

You just want to ensure that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

There has always been father/mother man/wife marriage; for thousands of years. Check with Justice Kennedy about that. States anticipate children in marriage; .

There has always been marriage- and there have always been children.
We encourage those who have children to get married. But we do not require any couples to get married if they have children, nor do we require any couples who get married to have children.

But we do encourage those who have children to get married- which is just another good reason why gay couples who have children should be encouraged to marry- rather than harm their children as you want us to do.

 

[Silhouette]

There has always been marriage- and there have always been children.
We encourage those who have children to get married. But we do not require any couples to get married if they have children, nor do we require any couples who get married to have children.

But we do encourage those who have children to get married- which is just another good reason why gay couples who have children should be encouraged to marry- rather than harm their children as you want us to do.

That's false. The state isn't in the business of encouraging people who already have children to get married! That would be you saying the states' original intent was to give blessing to children out of wedlock. What a completely shameless and manipulative liar you are. States are bummed out when people have kids out of wedlock. "Gay marriage" seeks to institutionalize children out of wedlock. No gay may reproduce and so all children in "gay marriage" are children of wedlock.

The state is in the business of encouraging the only types of people who can create children (male/female...every lesbian's child has a father) to be married FIRST and then have children. The state anticipates in every marriage that children will come along. Man...you're level of dishonesty Syriusly is not just stunning, it's epic.

 

[Syriusly]

There has always been marriage- and there have always been children.
We encourage those who have children to get married. But we do not require any couples to get married if they have children, nor do we require any couples who get married to have children.

But we do encourage those who have children to get married- which is just another good reason why gay couples who have children should be encouraged to marry- rather than harm their children as you want us to do.

That's false. The state isn't in the business of encouraging people who already have children to get married! That would be you saying the states' original intent was to give blessing to children out of wedlock..

Nothing false about it


But we do encourage those who have children to get married- which is just another good reason why gay couples who have children should be encouraged to marry- rather than harm their children as you want us to do

 

[Skylar]

Hmmm...but the premise of dismantling father/mother is "equality" so since ass-sex between men as "neo father/psuedo-mother" is about as whacked out there as you can get when it comes to marriage (children the paramount concern thereof).

Same problems you always have:

1) gay marriage is not gay parenting. One does not require the other. If you deny gays marriage...they will still have kids. If you deny gays marriage, their kids don't magically have opposite sex parents. So your proposal benefits no child.

2) Kennedy recognizes the harm that your proposal will cause children. This is inconvenient to your argument. So you ignore Kennedy. Kennedy won't ignore himself.

And so, this they are asking themselves. And how to do I know that? Because I read the transcripts of the Hearing. They were asking your side (to which your side evaded, hemmed, hawed and never did give a solid answer) how it was that if they forced gay marriage upon the states, how they then could legally exclude any other type of bastardization of marriage once that door had been opened. In other words as to the slippery slope that y'all have been so good at trying to pound out of existence by stalwart & coordinated denial (or Else!), the Supremes "went there". And that's when reporters noted that those in your ranks started squirming in their chairs a bit.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 10 years. Polygamy and incest still aren't.

So much for your 'slippery slope'.

You know. You've always known. That's why Duggar had to go down.

The child molester? I'd say his child molestation probably had more to do with 'him going down' than I did.

But hey, imagine whatever you'd like. It really doesn't matter.

You're angry because you know what's coming. The People will get to join the conversation as they always have been allowed to do "since the Founding of the country" (paraphrased, Windsor 2013). And so you will have to convince each state why it is that you should be incentivized by their taxpayers to provide a formative environment to kids that is absent a father or mother.

I think you're confusing me with yourself. I'm not the one that has called for the Supreme Court to be impeached over this issue, hysterically wailed that its 'simple tyranny' and calling their rulings on the matter 'treason'.

That would by you, my little drama queen.

Me? I'm looking forward to June.

Also, as to #2...Methinks

the stone wall the Supremes are going to come up against is the issue of adoption.

Nope. It was never once mentioned in the entire hearing. You're projecting again. And even your projection is meaningless drivel. As only 1 state requires couples to be married to adopt: Utah. Meaning that in 49 of 50 States, the issue you think that the court will base its entire ruling on......doesn't exist.

Reciprocity of contracts has a long and explicit constitutional pedigree. Its even more unlikely that the court is going to ignore it.

 

[Skylar]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny.”

Wrong.

The question is in fact limited to just two people not related to each other, because only two people not related to each other are eligible to enter into marriage contracts – same- or opposite-sex.

Well, let's see. Marriage is limited (not banned) to just a man and a woman in California and some 35 other states. So erstwhile limits don't seem to be an issue with your premise of "equality".

No it isn't. Gays and lesbians are getting married all the time in California. Remember, just because you close your eyes and pretend that the federal judiciary didn't overturn prop 8 doesn't mean that reality magically changes to match your fantasy.

Prop 8 is still overturned. Gays are still marrying in california. Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

Prop 8 was Upheld, and will likely be Reaffirmed-Upheld again next month by the 2013 Windsor Decision which at its end named only 11 states who had legal gay marriage as of its authorship. The 2013 Opinion iterated (56 time no less, in a 25 page Opinion) that the choice on this specific question of law (gay marriage) was and always had been up to the states. California, last time I checked, is a state. And California, last time I checked, cannot revoke intiative law without another initiative. And the lower courts in the federal appeals system, last time I checked, cannot overrule SCOTUS from underneath. For more on that point you should visit judge Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit decision.

1) gay marriage is not gay parenting. One does not require the other. If you deny gays marriage...they will still have kids. If you deny gays marriage, their kids don't magically have opposite sex parents. So your proposal benefits no child.

2) Kennedy recognizes the harm that your proposal will cause children. This is inconvenient to your argument. So you ignore Kennedy. Kennedy won't ignore himself..

1. Gays can never have kids. Only hetero couplings result in children. So what you're really wanting to do is make the Court put the stamp of approval and force all 50 states to put the stamp of approval on children born out of wedlock "as married". For instance, every child of a lesbian has a father. Every child of gay men has a mother. "Gay marriage" institutionalizes the deprivation to children of one of the vital genders as a parenting role model.

2. Which time? This time or the one you guys are fond of quoting about him? Because this time he was bemoaning how there aren't enough social studies in (with respect to children and their formative environment) for him to feel comfortable forcing this on unwilling states. His prescription, if I remember transcripts correctly, was for the other 35 states to watch, wait and see the 11+/- states who actually wanted gay marriage, and for those other 35 to be a part of an ongoing conversation that Kennedy felt shouldn't be killed.

 

[Skylar]

Prop 8 was Upheld, and will likely be Reaffirmed-Upheld again next month by the 2013 Windsor Decision which at its end named only 11 states who had legal gay marriage as of its authorship. The 2013 Opinion iterated (56 time no less, in a 25 page Opinion) that the choice on this specific question of law (gay marriage) was and always had been up to the states.

Ah, but the part that you keep forgetting? The part of the ruling that put constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

The hierarchy established by the Windsor decision is thus as follows:

1) Constitutional guarantees
2) State marriage law
3) Federal marriage law

And in Perry v. Brown, the federal judiciary found that Prop 8 violated constitutional guarantees. And was thus invalid. Consequently, the Perry decision was in complete compliance with Windsor, which establish constitutional guarantees as being above state marriage laws. As it should be.

Worse for you, the Supreme Court preserved the Perry decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry upheld the federal court ruling overturning Prop 8. There is no appeal left. Thus, the Perry v. Brown decision stands. And it overturned Prop 8.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

California, last time I checked, is a state. And California, last time I checked, cannot revoke intiative law without another initiative. And the lower courts in the federal appeals system, last time I checked, cannot overrule SCOTUS from underneath. For more on that point you should visit judge Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit decision.

The obvious problem with your claims being.....the Supreme Court never ruled that state same sex marriage bans were constitutional. Making your entire argument moot. Worse for you, the Supreme Court did find that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. And the Perry decision overturned Prop 8 on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. With the Supreme Court itself preserving the Perry decision

Prop 8 is still overturned. Gay marriage is still legal in California. Remember, Sil......you don't actually know what you're talking about. You summarily ignoring Perry v. Brown and Hollingsworth v. Perry doesn't make either decision disappear.

1. Gays can never have kids. Only hetero couplings result in children. So what you're really wanting to do is make the Court put the stamp of approval and force all 50 states to put the stamp of approval on children born out of wedlock "as married". For instance, every child of a lesbian has a father. Every child of gay men has a mother. "Gay marriage" institutionalizes the deprivation to children of one of the vital genders as a parenting role model.

There are children being raised by same sex couples, as the court has already affirmed in the Windsor decision. And denying their parents same sex marriage hurts these children, per the Supreme Court itself:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. "

You can ignore Kennedy on the harm the denial of marriage of same sex couples causes their children. But Kennedy won't.

2. Which time? This time or the one you guys are fond of quoting about him? Because this time he was bemoaning how there aren't enough social studies in (with respect to children and their formative environment) for him to feel comfortable forcing this on unwilling states.

Actually, that's not what he said. He said that the social science wasn't a reliable indicator as the science was too new. So he wasn't going to use social science.

"Well, part of wait and see, I suppose, is to ascertain whether the social 18 science, the new studies are accurate. But that it seems to me, then, that we should not consult at all the social science on this, because it's too new. You think you say we don't need to wait for changes. So it seems to me that if we're not going to wait, then it's only fair for us to say, well, we're not going to consult social science."

Justice Kennedy

He said clearly that he wasn't going to consult social science. That in no way contradicts any of the harms he cited in the Windsor decision, as they were all immediate legal harms. Not defined by social science, nor referencing social science in anyway.

Again, its highly unlikely that Kennedy is going to ignore himself and instead follow whatever it is you make up. Its much more likely that Kennedy is going to affirm his own arguments and his own findings in previous cases.

Which leaves you without a paddle or a boat to swing it in. As Kennedy has found no benefit to any child in denying same sex marriage. And has instead found immediate legal harm to children caused by denying same sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

Once again, marriage has nothing at all to do with children, not a bloody thing.

 

[Silhouette]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

Once again, marriage has nothing at all to do with children, not a bloody thing.

A vast and overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with you Paint. Probably like around 95% of the world completely disagrees with you. So that's like 5.9 billion people vs Paint's ilk.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

Once again, marriage has nothing at all to do with children, not a bloody thing.

A vast and overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with you Paint. Probably like around 95% of the world completely disagrees with you. So that's like 5.9 billion people vs Paint's ilk.

I couldn't care less since most people are as dumb as dog shit and have no understanding, like you, of either biology or law. Marriage has nothing to do with children, and never has. They are a byproduct of human sexual relations, married or not.

And we don't do what is in the best interests of the child and marriage is no exception. It's none of their damn business, and never has been.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

This fails as a red herring fallacy, having nothing to do whatsoever with the issues before the Court.

 

[Skylar]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

Finally realized that pretending that Perry v. Brown didn't exist wasn't going to work for you, huh?

Good.

Same sex marriage and same sex parenting isn't the same thing. You keep equating them. And you keep getting it wrong. Gays and lesbians are already having kids. Denying same sex marriage won't change that. All it will do is hurt the children of same sex parents....while benefiting no one.